Yet another pathetic reporter glory hunts to save her tragic career, clown Catriona Stewart. Vile creep Catriona has the appearance of a typically insane modern day feminist desperado. Old, portly and angry (about nothing and everything!). The tubby blonde OAP reporter makes an absolute fool of herself on social media – her hobbies include; “sitting on the sofa in her night clothes drinking gallons of wine.”

Scummy Catriona normally preys on her victims via writing crappy trash articles about “traffic, manicures and car washes;” but decided to target Addy Agame to give her career a boost, she needs the money for more gallons of wine to drink on her sofa! The seedy feminist claims, “unfair that women in the public eye have their wardrobe analysed,” really Catriona, get a grip on reality, you’ve never encountered an actual problem in your whole lonely and miserable life (except maybe potential alcoholism).

Slimy Catriona Stewart claims to be a “cyclist” (though she shows no sign of athleticism in her frame) and states; “people shout at her when she cycles and it annoys her.” Maybe you should speed up or move out the way you moron, to be honest people probably spot the creature’s demeanour and shout out of protest and disgust. This is who writes for the Evening Times people, be warned!

This dirty geek’s writing is almost as bad as her crap dress sense. Her choice of words “victims,” there were no victims, there were no actual crimes recognised under UK Law, there has to be a crime to be a “victim.” Fake “victims” who are glory-hungry idiots, jump on a fake #metoo bandwagon (saying they were simply chatted up) actually take away from real victims who actually have to face the reality of real crimes. The only “victims” in connection to the Evening Times are the people they victimise through their vile trash hate articles.

Clatty Catriona spewed; “preying on young women, he targeted them.” If you observe clearly there is no “preying” or “targeting” of women. They either stop to speak to Addy or they walk with him, both of their own free will. This is another predictable gas lighting tactic by the feminazi scum-bag,  she uses words like “targeting” instead of “approaching” and “preying” instead of “meeting.”

The dead-beat clown at the Evening Times continued; “secretly filmed himself approaching in Glasgow and Eastern Europe.” Ahmed was not charged with this because it is not a crime! It may be immoral to some, but who the hell is Catriona Stewart to talk about morality to anyone, she’s been caught with her metaphoric pants down and arse exposed hundreds of thousands of times.

Catriona “the creep” Stewart wrote her perverted, stupefied, childish, twisted opinion (fuelled by lies to advance her back-breaking lacklustre career) by stating; “Adnan Ahmed posted twisted videos on YouTube approaching females for his creepy and vile antics.” The only thing creepy and twisted in this scenario is your existence Catriona! Ahmed’s antics were normal YouTube protocol, hundreds of individuals around the world run online dating businesses.

Catriona Stewart starts her lie filled Evening Times article with the headline “Addy Agame Targeting Schoolgirls In Glasgow.” You are an idiot Catriona, “targeting schoolgirls in Glasgow,” this is not the truth. Addy wasn’t accused of “targeting” anyone, the “schoolgirls” Catriona weirdly talks about were young adults over the age of sexual consent in the UK and the supposed incidents were not said to have took place in Glasgow. Charlatan Catriona Stewart deliberately writes “schoolgirls” with no explanation, to imply they were children, they were not, you rat! Ahmed was not convicted of any sexual offences! He was wrongfully convicted of “section 38 breach of the peace” for chatting up girls, during the day, in well populated areas with hundreds of people around – this is not a sexual offence!

Ahmed’s wrongful conviction is “section 38 breach of the peace.”  There was no sexual element, it was chatting! A Sheriff should not be influenced by other cases or the media, they have a duty to be impartial and to do the right thing by the law! The law should always overrule the media, however it seems to be the opposite way around in Scotland. If this insanity occurs, it will mean any man chatting up any woman in Scotland (whether it be during the day or in a nightclub) will be at risk, even if no sexual offence has occurred!

Reptile Catriona Stewart continued; “lawyer making her case said that her client has been remanded in custody since January 14 this year.” “Ahmed has been remanded since January this year which is the equivalent of an 18 month sentence. “His lawyer Donna Armstrong asked for bail but it was refused,” The Evening Times actually made a true statement, Ahmed has been remanded for this period and bail was refused – this was for “section 38 breach of the peace” charges, that are not even jailable offences! And Ahmed was wrongfully convicted by a brain-washed jury that were hammered by media propaganda (TV, newspapers, radio, online) on a daily basis during Ahmed’s trial!

In reality Ahmed was wrongfully convicted by a biased jury who were influenced by an online social media campaign and horrible selective press reporting during every turn of his trial (by Catriona Stewart and the Scottish media scum). Even though it was clearly stated in court; “this is not a crime; being confident is not a crime, having a conversation is not a crime, witness is unreliable, asking someone out is not a crime, if you have any inclination of reasonable doubt – he’s innocent, people’s perspectives were  skewed by how Ahmed was portrayed in a online/ media hate campaign.” Ahmed was actually wrongfully convicted of section 38 breach of the peace which is equivalent to raising one’s voice too loud outdoors, madness! Here’s how the jury process works in Scotland, there is no screening for racist, feminist, prejudice or psychiatric deficiencies (unlike the USA). 15 members of the public are selected at random and simply told, “don’t go on social media or media” without any enforcement or checks conducted during the trial. Ahmed’s jury was made up of 9 females and 6 males (some of which were programmed by the media to hate him, some pudgy beta males and some angry overweight feminists), the wrongful non-majority “guilty” verdict will be appealed and overturned in the next few months as no crime was actually committed! Ahmed maintains his innocence, 13 charges were dropped before the biased jury got a chance to deliberate on them. Adnan Ahmed did not receive a fair trial and is not guilty of any criminal conduct!

The jury and accusers are asked to take an “oath to God” to ensure an unbiased testimony, without individuals even being screened to see if they even believe in God (in an age of rampant atheist beliefs). It’s a ridiculous board-game style set-up, this is not justice, it’s a farce!

It is the aim of the clowns in the Scottish press to dehumanise Adnan Ahmed, objectify him, troll him and discredit his reputation to write scandalised, sensationalised lies as news stories. They did not write about his girlfriend and his mother being present to support him during the trial, as well as various male and female well-wishers and supporters dropping in and out during the proceedings. They did not report whole testimonials, only select words to demonise Ahmed further. The press even reported incidents Ahmed was found “not guilty” of after the trial finished. This is further grounds for him to sue for defamation!

Scummy toerag Catriona Stewart continued; “the court heard Ahmed approached 2 schoolgirls in a secluded lane in Uddingston in 2016. They were aged 16 and 17 at the time.” The “schoolgirls” are above the legal age of consent in the UK, 17 and 16. The alleged conversations are said by the two witnesses to have took place around 10am approximately, school had already started. The witnesses stated, “they were in there last year (6th year) of high school in 2016,” to the court. This is several months before a college or university course would begin should students at the late stage of high school wish to continue further education.

Catriona Stewart continued; “one witness, who was 17 at the time, said the man told her she looked pretty and asked her if she was married.” Again 17 is above legal age of consent in the UK and this allegation has not been proven. Additionally, to call someone pretty or ask their marital status, is not a criminal offence!

What Catriona Stewart conveniently left out was that the witness also said, “it was around 10am, not the usual time people go to school and the lane is attached to two main roads on either side, along with two small open grass fields at either side.” The witness also said that, “this is the common route to the train station that most people coming from that direction would take.”

Catriona quoted the witness as saying; “he asked me if I was at school and what I was doing at school.” Stewart left out the fact that before this quote the witness told the jury, “he introduced himself then I told him I was at school, he made general conversation, we spoke for under three minutes and parted ways.” This is vital information! Catriona Stewart quoted the witness alleging, “he was asking if I had a boyfriend and I said no.” This is not a crime.

Catriona Stewart continued; “she said – he asked me if I was married, as I was wearing a ring, I said no and walked away.” However no “friends” or “teachers” came to court to confirm this. In the woman’s police statement, she said she saw Mr Ahmed several times after the 2016 incident in the same area, but they never spoke again! The 2016 incident was reported to police in January 2019 after the BBC made a video defaming Ahmed’s dating business.

In regards to the second witness Catriona left out that the incident is said by the witness to have taken place again around 10am after school had already began an hour previously, in the same lane attached to two main roads that is the main route to the train station which commuters take. Both these witnesses admit to being linked and both stated that they are good friends. What Catriona Stewart again conveniently left out was that the witness told the court; “the school is right next to the train station and that the pair parted ways in under 3 minutes in different directions towards their separate destinations!” Mr Ahmed’s defence team have lodged an eye witness in his defence which would like to confirm there was no “intimidation” involved.

Creepy Catriona also conveniently left out the testimony Adnan Ahmed gave to the court himself, Addy gave a real honest account of events stating; “it was around 10am, we were both walking on the main route to the train station, it is not a secluded lane, it’s a open main route to the train, I was walking in front of her, waved and signalled for her to take her headphones out, then said – hey you look pretty enough to go for coffee with, that is if your boyfriend is cool with it. She smiled and said, I don’t have a boyfriend. I then said I’m catching a train to the city centre. I thought she was doing the same as she wasn’t wearing a school uniform and it was outside school hours, I assumed she was 19 or 20. She then said – I’m going to school; which shocked me, I immediately asked how old are you? She said 17, I then said – hope you’re enjoying school and shook her hand to say bye, her ring struck my hand when we shook hands, I said – you hit me with your wedding ring as a parting joke, I did not ask her about her being married! The conversation lasted under a minute, I did not ask her for her number or to go for a coffee. I saw her many times around that area for 3 years and we never spoke again, she also confirmed this to the police.”

Click the following link to read about a testimonial by a female who dated Addy, who met him in the same area around the same time – http://redpillrights.com/?p=1086&preview=true

Regarding the second incident, Addy told the court; “it was around the same time and place, again 10 am, on my way to the city, no school uniform, soon as she said she was 16 I left, this girl confirmed to the court I didn’t ask for a number, she confirmed I didn’t ask her out, it was less than a minute of chat. She also said in court she saw me many times after that in the area and we never spoke again. These incidents are said to have happened in 2016 and no one came forward then. only in 2019 after how I was portrayed in the social media hate campaign (referring to BBC Social hate video against him) there was a sudden change in perspective by these girls to say passing comments were a crime that caused them discomfort. I could have asked someone for the time, after the January 2019 media uproar, they would have reported it. They both know each other well and colluded on social media. They are not being truthful! There was nothing sinister or rehearsed or pre-planned as is being suggested, it was spontaneous and quick.”

Hate-mongering liar Catriona Stewart spewed more bile by stating; “lawyer Donna Armstrong defending said; he didn’t want to cause fear or alarm.” What simple Stewart left out is Ahmed’s brilliant advocate Donna Armstrong also said of these incidents; “the witnesses admit the path to the train station can be walked in under 60 seconds. In our civilised society these girls are considered adults not children, you’ve seen my client talk to girls on video, it is consensual and the women involved gave positive responses, this is evidence of how his interactions are. This is the main route to the train station in Uddingston, not a secluded lane, it has fields of grass either side and the school happens to be right next to the train station. All sides have said it was during the day outside school hours. For talking sake, even if both these ladies had went on a date with him, this would be perfectly legal, this is not a crime, I implore you to find him not guilty!”

Corny lair Catriona Stewart selectively falsified more stating; “a 21-year old female broke down in court when she said Ahmed followed her through Glasgow city centre in 2016. She was 18 at the time.” Catriona Stewart labelled what appeared to be seconds of tears as “sobbing,” the woman then talked as normal in front of the jury. The woman was also asked why it took her 3 years to report it (in 2019) she told the court she didn’t feel there was a crime. The woman also told the court she had anxiety and mental health issues. She also said “I looked a lot better 3 years ago, I was thinner, I didn’t have tattoos on my face,” the court heard.

Catriona Stewart blatantly lied by saying she was “followed through Glasgow city centre,” no one said this but the slime bag hack journo rodent! This is inaccurate as the woman told the court it was over an hour later, she actually said after the initial approach in Buchanan Galleries she went shopping in various stores, called her grandmother for 45 minutes and headed to Argos in Stockwell street in Glasgow a further 35 minutes later approximately. Catriona Stewart then biasedly stated; “he tried to pull me close to him so he could kiss me, so I pushed him away.” Catriona left out that it was pointed out to jurors that this recollection of events contradicted her police statement, in which she did not say she was “pulled close to him.”  The witness responded by saying the police lied. The witness told the court “I did not make physical contact with the man when I pushed him,” however in her police report she said she did, this was also pointed out to the jury by Ahmed’s lawyer.

The court heard, in her police statement she said the man “touched her face and tried to kiss her,” when the woman was cross examined about this contradiction in court she said she didn’t say so at first as she didn’t want to interrupt the questioning (despite being asked numerous times) then suddenly claimed both “the pull and face touch” took place. When the contradictory police statement and court statement was pointed out to the woman in front of the jurors, she sat down from a standing position in the witness box!

Catriona left out that the woman also said she was messaged by the man on social media, she told jurors this happened despite her giving a fake name to the man which was not linked to any of her social media accounts as she said she did not tell him any details of mutual friends. She also told the court the man wrote his details on a receipt during the initial meeting, but was still able to contact her despite not having any of her contact details and not even knowing her name! Stupid Stewart continued; “she walked away from him and stood with strangers to be somewhere safe.” Catriona failed to report that these alleged witnesses were not presented in court and that when the woman was asked if anyone saw this she said no despite people being around her.

Adnan Ahmed’s excellent lawyer Donna Armstrong described this witness to the court as “she is unreliable, on record she changed her story 3 times, you can’t trust the testimony she has given.” Ahmed also took the stand to testify regarding this “unreliable” witness, Ahmed stated; “she’s lying, we met briefly on Buchanan Street, then 2 hours later on Stockwell street. I was with my friend David, he’s an eye witness. I did not try to kiss her, she gave me her number and Snapchat. She changed her story over and over. In court she said I touched her back and not face, in her police statement she said I touched her face with no mention of touching her back. In court she said she didn’t push me physically, in her police statement she said she did.” The “unreliable” woman also said she came forward in 2019 because of the BBC Social video.”

This “unreliable” woman also gave a 3rd story that did not mention any “touching of face” or “touching of back” or “pulling” or “pushing” to the press in January 2019, (after the BBC Social hate video dropped) which was not included in the court proceedings (only a bias unfair jury would find a man guilty of breach of the peace for such an obvious lie).

Predatory freak reporter Catriona Stewart  lied more stating; “a 20 year old female thought Ahmed was playing a practical joke on her on Buchanan Street in November last year. She said: he gave me a compliment, said I looked like Kim Kardashian.” What Catriona Stewart failed to state is that the 20 year old woman told jurors she messaged the man on Instagram, they also failed to establish how the man and woman added each other on Instagram! Catriona continued to report that the woman told the jury that the man messaged her on Instagram and she messaged him also, Catriona also stated; “the man went onto claim the woman was racist before she blocked him.”

Jurors also heard that this account of messages were from only one source, the witness, they were not found on the accused’s phone or laptop. The jurors also heard this supposedly happened in 2018 and was not reported until 2019. The BBC made a video defaming Ahmed in January 2019, triggering a cyber bullying campaign against him, leading to his remand. She told jurors, I thought it was a prank, he managed to get my name from my phone case, she felt uncomfortable and intimidated by the man, she was asked to go for a glass of wine, she pretended to have a boyfriend.”

The media quoted this without pointing out the woman said only one part of her name was on her phone case and she claimed Ahmed found her on Instagram by chance despite her full name being her Instagram title. Ahmed testified in court regarding this also, he said; “we talked for under 5 minutes on St.Vincent Street, she gave me her insta details. She said to the court only one part of her name was on her phone case, her Instagram name is her whole name, and has an underscore in it, there was no way anyone could guess that – check the evidence, plus it’s a foreign name. Also there are 2 messages from her missing in the feed she provided to the court, check my message feed; I initially sent – “Kim Kardashian fun to meet you” she sent me the message “haha is this a joke” (this was missing). I responded with “no joke, let’s get drinks,” she responded, “I don’t know you,” I responded, “get to know me, do you drink red or white wine,” she then sent a “black face” emoji (this was missing from her feed) – which I didn’t notice until a few days after, I thought she was joking, so I sent back “good morning ya racist” as a joke in response. There was no further response, so I didn’t contact her again. We are both of non-white ethnicity, it was a joke, we’re both brown! She didn’t block me, I didn’t contact her again, she confirmed this. When we initially met, she didn’t say she had a boyfriend, that’s a lie, I have an eye witness who can confirm all of this!”

Ahmed’s lawyer told the court; “the messages are from one source, her! This is not a crime, my client is giving an honest testimony. Being confident is not a crime. You the jury must have felt somewhat uncomfortable and intimidated when selected to be jurors for this case, that doesn’t equate to a crime either. This is not the fault of my client, these are emotions felt by all people. This is not a court of morality, it’s a court of law, you may not like my client but that doesn’t mean he’s guilty. He did not intimidate anyone.” Lawyer Ms Armstrong also cross-examined this accuser stating, “there are messages missing from the feed, why did he respond “no joke” after initially sending “fun to meet you” without a response, it doesn’t make sense. You said in your statement, “is this a joke” now you’re saying it was in person and not over text?!” The witness twisted her face and scowled at the lawyer in response.

The weak mousy Evening Times reporter then spat; “Ahmed a dating and lifestyle coach, what he did was educational. However, women he had approached told his trial they had been upset and intimidated.” Addy gave a statement at the trial also telling the court; “no one involved (the women) thought anything untoward was going on until their perception was changed by how I was portrayed in the online and media smear campaign in January 2019 (referring to BBC Social’s cyber-hate video). All of a sudden a few warped people said I spoke to them like it was not just a quick chat. I could have asked someone the time and they would have reported it as being uncomfortable or intimidating.” Many legal experts also agreed and re-iterated this throughout the trial.

The Evening Times are well known for their fake news, false allegations and dirty lies in countless articles. The Evening Times were forced to apologise for a rape story they featured recently because they irresponsibly published intimate aspects of the alleged victims ordeal. They also twisted the story in order to sensationalise it to sell their filthy publication. The alleged victim claimed that by The Evening Times reporting it in the twisted manner the fake news vultures did, it was like reliving the horrible ordeal. An MSP got involved (for the right reason for once) and the newspaper made a weak apology. The alleged victim attempted to commit suicide 3 times because of this. This is the fault of the cowards at The Evening Times, who hide their nasty  journalists names by crediting their garbage articles to “The Evening Times.” Thus, every reporter at The Evening Times is responsible and should be liable and held accountable for their lies.

Check out our next blog post: http://redpillrights.com/vultures-at-clyde-1-attempt-to-influence-court-proceedings-against-addy-agame-ahmed-not-guilty/